R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farmers Inc. v. Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge made a factual finding that R.S.W.H. was not shown on a balance of probabilities to be a farmer and the Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in that finding; the earlier motion decision did not finally decide farmer status and therefore was not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 258
- Parties
- Applicant (appellant): R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farmers Inc.; Applicant (appellant): 1427868 Ontario Ltd.; Respondent: Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale; Respondent: Ontario Peninsula Farms Ltd.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (judgment of Justice Gray Dated October 13, 2009)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed (cross-appellants elected not to proceed)
- Legal Topics
- Farm Debt Mediation Act, Farmer Status, Security for Costs, Res Judicata, Good Faith Purchaser, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farmers Inc.
Applicant (appellant)
1427868 Ontario Ltd.
Applicant (appellant)
Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale
Respondent
Ontario Peninsula Farms Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (judgment of Justice Gray Dated October 13, 2009)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether R.S.W.H. and/or 1427868 Ontario Ltd. were 'farmers' under s.1 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act
- 2 Whether an earlier motion decision constituted res judicata on the farmer status issue
- 3 Whether Ontario Peninsula Farms Ltd. was a good faith purchaser under s.22 of the Act (issue not finally determined)
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge made a factual finding that R.S.W.H. was not shown on a balance of probabilities to be a farmer and the Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in that finding; the earlier motion decision did not finally decide farmer status and therefore was not res judicata.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed (cross-appellants elected not to proceed)
Orders
- Costs awarded to Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale fixed at $20,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements
- Costs awarded to Ontario Peninsula Farms Ltd. fixed at $15,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farmers Inc. v. Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-04-09 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 258 Docket numbers C51175 Judges Gillese, Eileen E.; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farmers Inc. v. Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale, 2010 ONCA 258 DATE: 20100408 DOCKET: C51175 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Gillese, Lang and Rouleau JJ.A. BETWEEN: R.S.W.H. Vegetable Farmers Inc. and 1427868 Ontario Ltd. Applicants (Appellants) and Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale and Ontario Peninsula Farms Ltd. Respondents (Respondents in Appeal) A. Wilford, for the appellants John S. Kelly, for the respondent Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale Stuart R. MacKay, for the respondent Ontario Peninsula Farms Ltd. Heard: April 6, 2010 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Gray of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 13, 2009. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The court found it unnecessary to call on the respondents to the appeal. [2] Section 1 of the Farm Debt Mediation Act, R.S.C. 1997, c. 21, defines a farmer as “an individual, corporation, cooperative, partnership or other association of persons that is engaged in farming for commercial purposes.” [3] The application judge found that there was inadequate evidence to satisfy him, on a balance of probabilities, that R.S.W.H. alone, or in conjunction with 1427868 Ontario Ltd., was engaged in farming. This court must defer to that finding absent a palpable and overriding error. We see none. On the contrary, the evidence on the record in relation to this matter is equivocal at best. [4] We do not accept that the determination on an earlier motion in this proceeding for security for costs renders res judicata the issue of whether R.S.W.H. is a farmer. The motion was directed at resolving the issue of whether security for costs should be ordered. In assessing whether the action was “frivolous and vexatious” for the purposes of s. 56(01) of the Rules of the Court, the motion judge said he was satisfied that R.S.W.H. was a farmer. Understood in context, it will be clear that the question of whether R.S.W.H. was a farmer was not fully argued. We do not view the motion judge as having finally decided the matter of whether R.S.W.H. was a farmer within the meaning of the legislation. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The cross appellants have elected not to proceed with the cross appeal. We dismiss the cross appeal but do not wish these reasons to be taken as endorsing the reasoning of the application judge in relation to the issue of whether OPF was a good faith purchaser within the meaning of s. 22 of the Act. [6] Costs are ordered in favour of the Bank fixed at $20,000 and to OPF fixed at $15,000. Both costs figures are inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.